62678 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

accomplished. As of the effective date of this 

AD, only Revision 04 of these service 

bulletins may be used. 

(5) If any crack is detected during any of 

the inspections required by paragraphs (p)(1), 

(p)(3), and (p)(4) of this AD, and Airbus 

Mandatory Service Bulletin A300–57A0246, 

Revision 03, dated March 11, 2009, or 

Revision 04, dated September 9, 2009; or 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300– 

57A6101, Revision 03, dated March 11, 2009, 

or Revision 04, dated September 9, 2009; 

recommends contacting Airbus for 

appropriate action: Before further flight, 

contact Airbus for a repair solution, and do 

the repair; or repair the cracking using a 

method approved by the Manager, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, or EASA or its 

delegated agent. As of the effective date of 

this AD, only Revision 04 of these service 

bulletins may be used. 

New Requirements of This AD: 

Terminating Action 

(q) Within 30 months after the effective 

date of this AD: Modify the spot-faces around 

all the fastener holes at locations 43, 47 to 

50, 52, and 54 (except for spot-faces of holes 

which have been previously repaired) on the 

bottom flange MLG ribs, in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Mandatory Service Bulletin A300–57–0254, 

Revision 01, including Appendix 1, dated 

June 14, 2011; or Airbus Mandatory Service 

Bulletin A300–57–6110, Revision 01, 

including Appendix 1, dated June 6, 2011; as 

applicable. Accomplishing this modification 

terminates the repetitive inspection 

requirements of paragraph (p)(4) of this AD. 

Credit for Actions Accomplished in 

Accordance With Previous Service 

Information 

(r) Modifying the spot-faces before the 

effective date of this AD, in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Mandatory Service Bulletin A300–57–0254, 

dated June 4, 2010; or Airbus Mandatory 

Service Bulletin A300–57–6110, dated June 

7, 2010; as applicable; is considered 

acceptable for compliance with the 

requirements of paragraph (q) of this AD. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 4: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(s) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): Manager, International Branch, 

ANM–116, FAA, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: 

Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; telephone (425) 227–2125; fax (425) 

227–1149. Information may be e-mailed to: 9- 

ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. 

Before using any approved AMOC, notify 

your appropriate principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. The AMOC 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 2000–05–07, 

Amendment 39–11616 (65 FR 12077, March 

8, 2000); AD 2006–12–13, Amendment 39– 

14639 (69 FR 54063, September 7, 2004); and 

AD 2010–23–26, Amendment 39–16516 (75 

FR 74610, December 1, 2010), are approved 

as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions 

of this AD. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

Related Information 

(t) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness 

Directive 2011–0029, dated February 24, 

2011; and the service information specified 

in Table 7 of this AD, for related information. 

TABLE 7—RELATED SERVICE INFORMATION

Airbus— Revision— Dated— 

Mandatory Service Bulletin A300–57A0246 ......................... 04, including Appendices 1 and 2 ....................................... September 9, 2009. 

Mandatory Service Bulletin A300–57–0254 .......................... 01 ......................................................................................... June 14, 2011. 

Mandatory Service Bulletin A300–57A6101 ......................... 04, including Appendices 1 and 2 ....................................... September 9, 2009. 

Mandatory Service Bulletin A300–57–6110 .......................... 01 ......................................................................................... June 6, 2011. 

Service Bulletin A300–57A0234 ............................................ 02 ......................................................................................... June 24, 1999. 

03, including Appendix 01 ................................................... September 2, 1999. 

04, including Appendix 01 ................................................... May 19, 2000. 

05, including Appendix 01 ................................................... February 19, 2002. 

Service Bulletin A300–57A6087 ............................................ 02, including Appendix 01 ................................................... June 24, 1999. 

03, including Appendix 01 ................................................... May 19, 2000. 

04, including Appendix 01 ................................................... February 19, 2002. 

05, including Appendix 01 ................................................... March 10, 2008. 

Service Bulletin A300–57–0235 ............................................ 04 ......................................................................................... March 13, 2003. 

05 ......................................................................................... December 3, 2003. 

Service Bulletin A300–57–6088 ............................................ 04 ......................................................................................... December 3, 2003. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 30, 2011. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–26113 Filed 10–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket No. CPSC–2011–0074] 

Table Saw Blade Contact Injuries; 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking; Request for Comments 

and Information 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’ 

or ‘‘we’’) is considering whether a new 

performance safety standard is needed 

to address an unreasonable risk of injury 

associated with table saws. We are 

conducting this proceeding under the 

authority of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’), 15 U.S.C. 2051– 

2084. This advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘ANPR’’) invites written 

comments from interested persons 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62679 

1The Commission voted 5–0 to publish this 

ANPR in the Federal Register. Chairman Inez M. 

Tenenbaum and Commissioner Robert Adler issued 

statements. The Web address for Commissioners’ 

statements is: http://www.cpsc.gov/pr/ 

statements.html. 

concerning the risk of injury associated 

with table saw blade contact, the 

regulatory alternatives discussed in this 

notice, other possible means to address 

this risk, and the economic impacts of 

the various alternatives. We also invite 

interested persons to submit an existing 

standard, or a statement of intent to 

modify or develop a voluntary standard, 

to address the risks of injury described 

in this ANPR.1

DATES: Written comments and 

submissions in response to this notice 

must be received by December 12, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2011– 

0074, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

accepting comments submitted by 

electronic mail (e-mail) except through 

www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions 

Submit written submissions in the 

following way: 

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions), 

preferably in five copies, to: Office of the 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Room 502, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this notice. All 

comments received may be posted 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided, to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

electronically. Such information should 

be submitted in writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Caroleene Paul, Directorate for 

Engineering Sciences, U.S. Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 5 Research 

Place, Rockville, Maryland 20850; 

telephone (301) 987–2225; fax (301) 

869–0294; e-mail cpaul@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, 

David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al. 

(‘‘petitioners’’) requested that we require 

performance standards for a system to 

reduce or prevent injuries from contact 

with the blade of a table saw. The 

petitioners cited estimates of 30,000 

annual injuries involving table saws, 

with approximately 90 percent of the 

injuries occurring to the fingers and 

hands, and 10 percent of the injuries 

resulting in amputation. The petitioners 

alleged that current table saws pose an 

unacceptable risk of severe injury 

because they are inherently dangerous 

and lack an adequate safety system to 

protect the user from accidental contact 

with the blade. 

In the Federal Register of July 9, 2003 

(68 FR 40912) and September 5, 2003 

(68 FR 52753), we invited comments on 

the issues raised by the petition 

(Petition No. CP03–2). We received 69 

comments. CPSC staff’s initial briefing 

package regarding the petition is 

available on the CPSC Web site at 

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia06/ 

brief/tablesaw.pdf. On July 11, 2006, the 

Commission voted (2–1) to grant the 

petition and directed CPSC staff to draft 

an ANPR. On July 15, 2006, the 

Commission lost its quorum and was 

unable to move forward with 

publication of an ANPR at that time. 

However, CPSC staff continued to 

evaluate table saws and initiated a 

special study from January 2007 to 

December 2008, to gather more accurate 

estimates on table saw injuries and 

hazard patterns related to table saw 

injuries. Based on CPSC staff’s updated 

information on blade contact injuries 

associated with table saw use, and CPSC 

staff’s evaluation of current technologies 

on table saws, we believe it is 

appropriate to issue an ANPR on table 

saw blade contact injuries at this time. 

CPSC staff’s updated briefing package, 

which supplements the initial briefing 

package, is available on the CPSC Web 

site at http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/ 

foia11/brief/tablesaw.pdf. 

B. Statutory Authority 

We are conducting this proceeding 

under authority of the Consumer 

Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’). 15 U.S.C. 

2051–2084. The Commission believes it 

has the statutory authority to move 

forward with this ANPR because table 

saws that are used by consumers present 

risks that may not be eliminated or 

reduced to a sufficient extent by actions 

undertaken under the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act. 15 U.S.C. 

§ 2080(a). 

Before adopting a CPSA standard, the 

Commission may issue an ANPR, as 

provided in section 9(a) of the CPSA. 15 

U.S.C. 2058(a). If the Commission 

decides to continue the rulemaking 

proceeding after considering responses 

to the ANPR, the Commission must then 

publish the text of the proposed rule, 

along with a preliminary regulatory 

analysis, in accordance with section 9(c) 

of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2058(c). If the 

Commission thereafter moves forward to 

issue a final rule, in addition to the text 

of the final rule, it must publish a final 

regulatory analysis that includes: (1) A 

description of the potential benefits and 

costs of the rule; (2) a summary of any 

alternatives that were considered, their 

potential costs and benefits, and the 

reasons for their rejection; and (3) a 

summary and assessment of any 

significant issues raised on the 

preliminary regulatory analysis that 

accompanied the proposed rule. 15 

U.S.C. 2058(f)(2). In addition, the 

Commission, among other things, must 

make findings that an existing or 

proposed voluntary standard would not 

be adequate, that the benefits of the rule 

bear a reasonable relationship to its 

costs, and that the rule is the least 

burdensome requirement that prevents 

or adequately reduces the risk of injury. 

15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3). 

C. The Product 

Table saws are stationary power tools 

used for the straight sawing of various 

materials—but primarily wood. In 

essence, a table saw consists of a table 

that sits on a base and through which a 

spinning blade protrudes. To make a 

cut, the table saw operator places the 

workpiece on the table, and, typically 

guided by a rip fence or miter gauge, 

slides the workpiece into the blade. 

There are three basic table saw 

categories that comprise the population 

of table saws used for both consumer 

and professional use: bench saws, 

contractor saws, and cabinet saws. 

Generally, the range of quality and 

accuracy of a table saw is commensurate 

with its size, motor horsepower, weight, 

and, indirectly, price. 

Bench saws are lightweight, 

inexpensive saws, designed to be moved 

around easily and placed temporarily on 

a work bench or stand. Prices for bench 

saws range from $100 to $600. 

Contractor saws are characterized by a 

set of light-duty legs and a bigger table 

and motor than a bench saw. Prices for 

a contractor saw range from about $500 

to $1,800, or more. These saws are 

generally quieter, more accurate, and 

able to cut materials up to 2 inches 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
62680 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

thick. Cabinet saws are heavier than 

contractor saws because the higher 

powered motor is enclosed in a solid 

base. Prices for cabinet saws range from 

$1,000 to $3,000. These saws are 

designed for heavy use, and the greater 

weight reduces vibration so that cuts are 

smooth and more accurate. These saws 

are typically the highest grade saw 

found in the home woodworking shop. 

Standard safety devices on table saws 

are designed to prevent the saw blade 

from making contact with the operator 

and to prevent the saw blade from 

imparting its kinetic energy to the 

workpiece and throwing the workpiece 

back toward the operator, a 

phenomenon known as kickback. The 

configuration and specific design of 

safety devices vary from manufacturer 

to manufacturer, but the safety devices 

generally fall into two basic categories: 

blade guards and kickback prevention 

devices. 

Traditionally, table saws sold in the 

United States have employed a blade 

guard system that combines a hood-type 

blade guard, splitter (also known as 

spreader), and anti-kickback pawls as a 

single unit that is bolted to the saw’s 

carriage assembly. The hood is a single, 

rectangular piece of transparent plastic 

that surrounds the exposed blade with 

a sloped front to allow the guard to rise 

and ride over the workpiece as the piece 

is fed toward the blade during a cut. The 

splitter generally serves as the main 

support and connection point for the 

blade guard and the anti-kickback 

pawls. Thus, removing the splitter for 

any reason, necessarily removes the rest 

of the blade guard system and the 

protections those devices might offer. 

Splitters, riving knives, and antikickback pawls are the primary safety 

devices on table saws that are intended 

to prevent kickback of the workpiece. 

Splitters ride within the cut, or kerf, to 

prevent the workpiece from closing up 

and pinching the blade, which can 

cause the workpiece to be thrown back 

toward the operator. Because the height 

of the splitter is often taller than the 

blade, splitters must be removed when 

making non-through cuts because the 

top portion of the blade must be 

exposed to cut into the workpiece. If 

other safety devices are attached to the 

splitter, removal of the splitter removes 

these safety devices as well. 

Riving knives are curved steel plates 

that are similar to, and perform the same 

function as, splitters, but sit very close 

to the blade and rise no higher than the 

top of the saw blade. The riving knife 

attaches to the arbor assembly so that it 

moves up and down with the blade. 

These characteristics allow riving 

knives to be used while making nonthrough cuts because the top of the 

blade is exposed. A properly installed 

riving knife may be the most effective 

way to prevent kickback because it 

limits workpiece access to the rear teeth 

of the saw blade. Anti-kickback pawls 

consist of two hinged and barbed pieces 

of metal that allow passage of the 

workpiece but will dig into the 

workpiece if it begins to move back 

toward the operator. 

CPSC staff has identified several 

characteristics of traditional blade guard 

systems that are likely to hinder table 

saw use and motivate consumers to 

remove them to make performing a cut 

simpler or easier. These characteristics 

include: 

(1) Potential jamming of the 

workpiece on the guard: Some blade 

guards may jam on the leading edge of 

the workpiece, requiring the consumer 

to push the workpiece forcefully or to 

raise the guard manually; 

(2) Poor visibility caused by the 

guard: Hood guards can limit visibility 

when lining up cuts and during a cut, 

especially with sawdust accumulation 

in the guard; 

(3) Poor splitter alignment with the 

blade: A splitter can bend over time 

with use of the table saw. A blade guard 

system with a splitter that is not aligned 

properly with the blade can make 

feeding the workpiece through the blade 

increasingly difficult and can actually 

increase the likelihood of kickback; and 

(4) Mandatory removal of the blade 

guard for certain cuts: The splitter and 

blade guard must be removed for certain 

oversized cuts, very narrow cuts, and 

any type of non-through cut. To switch 

back to typical through cuts, the splitter 

and guard must be reinstalled in 

keeping with manufacturers’ 

recommendations that blade guard 

systems be used whenever performing a 

through cut. 

D. The Market 

CPSC staff has identified at least 15 

manufacturers and importers of table 

saws. According to the Power Tool 

Institute (‘‘PTI’’), its members account 

for approximately 85 percent of all table 

saws sold in the United States. Most 

manufacturers are large, diversified, 

international corporations with billions 

of dollars in sales, of which table saws 

generally make up a relatively small 

part of their revenue. Several other U.S. 

corporations manufacture or import 

smaller numbers of table saws for the 

U.S. market. According to PTI, 

estimated annual shipments of table 

saws have fluctuated widely in recent 

years. In 2006 and 2007, estimated 

shipments were 800,000 to 850,000 

units. However, estimated shipments 

declined to 650,000 in 2008, 589,000 in 

2009, and 429,000 in 2010. 

CPSC staff also obtained information 

from PTI regarding the expected useful 

life estimates for different categories of 

table saws, ranging from 6 years for an 

inexpensive bench saw, to 17 years for 

a contractor saw, to 24 years for an 

expensive cabinet saw. Based on these 

expected product lives and sales data 

for the different types of saws, PTI 

estimated the number of table saws in 

use at 8.0 million in 2001/2002, and 9.5 

million in 2007/2008. CPSC staff 

believes that this estimate is generally 

consistent with independent estimates 

of table saws in use, based upon product 

population estimates using the CPSC’s 

Product Population Model (‘‘PPM’’). 

The PPM is used by CPSC staff to 

estimate the number of products in use, 

given sales estimates and information 

on expected product life. Assuming an 

average retail price of $500 per table 

saw, and average annual shipments of 

about 700,000 units, CPSC staff believes 

that annual retail sales may be in the 

range of $300 to $400 million. 

CPSC staff also reviewed tariff and 

trade data from the U.S. Department of 

Commerce and the U.S. International 

Trade Commission, which showed that 

China and Taiwan together account for 

more than $150 million dollars in 

annual imports. Allowing for markups 

of table saws at the manufacturer/ 

private labeler level and the retail level, 

CPSC staff found that imports may 

account for a majority of the estimated 

$300 million to $400 million in 

shipments estimated. According to 

CPSC staff, exports from the United 

States appear to be minimal, less than 

$1 million annually. 

E. Incident Data 

CPSC staff first reviewed the National 

Electric Injury Surveillance System 

(‘‘NEISS’’) data in 2001 and 2002. The 

data indicated that there were 38,000 

total emergency room-treated injuries 

associated with table saws in 2001, and 

38,980 injuries in 2002. In 2001, CPSC 

staff conducted follow-up investigations 

on stationary saw-related injuries for 

NEISS cases treated between October 1, 

2001 and December 31, 2001. As a result 

of the investigations, CPSC staff was 

able to identify injuries that resulted 

from previously unspecified saw 

categories, resulting in more precise 

injury estimates for 2001 and 2002. Of 

the 28,300 emergency room-treated 

injuries in 2001 and 2002 involving 

table saw operator blade contact, most 

of the injuries were sustained to the 

finger(s), and the majority of the injuries 

were lacerations. Fewer injuries resulted 

in amputations. The remaining injuries 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62681 

included fractures, avulsions (the 

forcible separation or tearing away of a 

part of the body), and crushings. 

Since its initial review of table saw 

blade contact injuries, based on data 

from NEISS, CPSC staff found that the 

estimated number of emergency 

department-treated injuries associated 

with table saws averaged 36,400 per 

year from 2001 to 2008. The trend 

analysis conducted by CPSC staff of the 

annual estimates for 2001 to 2008, 

indicated that the number of all sawrelated injuries (including table saws, 

band and radial saws, handheld saws, 

and saws not specified) was steady 

during this time. 

CPSC staff conducted a follow-up 

special study on stationary saw-related 

injuries between January 2007 to 

December 2008, to gather more accurate 

estimates on table saw injuries and 

hazard patterns related to table saw 

injuries. The special study conducted 

follow-up interviews on emergency 

room-treated table saw incidents that 

were reported through NEISS. The 

special study allowed more precise table 

saw injury estimates to be computed for 

2007 (38,300 injuries), and 2008 (41,200 

injuries). Of the 79,500 total emergency 

department-treated injuries associated 

with table saws in 2007 and 2008, an 

estimated 76,100 injuries were 

sustained by operators of the table saws. 

Of the injuries to table saw operators, an 

estimated 66,900 injuries (88%) 

involved blade contact, which is the 

pattern of addressable hazards that this 

ANPR seeks to address. 

CPSC staff estimates that there were 

approximately 66,900 emergency roomtreated injuries involving table saw 

operator blade contact in 2007 and 

2008. Of the 66,900 emergency roomtreated injuries involving table saw 

operator blade contact in 2007 and 

2008, the majority (68.5%) of the 

victims were between the ages of 15 to 

64 years old, and 31 percent were 65 

years old or older. Among the operator 

blade contact injuries, laceration was 

the most frequent (65.9%) form of 

injury, followed by fractures (12.4%), 

amputation (12.0%), and avulsion 

(8.5%). The rate of hospitalization was 

7.1 percent, compared to an average 4 

percent rate of hospitalization for all 

consumer products reported through the 

NEISS system. Because CPSC staff 

determined that the injury trend 

associated with all saws has been 

relatively stable from 2001 and 2008, 

and they concluded that the results of 

the special study represented the most 

accurate estimates available, CPSC staff 

relied on the data from the special study 

for 2007 and 2008 to summarize blade 

contact injuries and their associated 

hazard patterns. 

Of the 66,900 emergency room-treated 

injuries involving table saw operator 

blade contact in 2007 and 2008, 

approximately 20,700 (30.9%) of the 

injuries occurred on table saws where a 

blade guard was in use. Approximately 

44,500 (66.5%) of the injuries occurred 

on table saws that did not have a blade 

guard attached. The most common 

reason for absence of the blade guard 

was removal by the consumer (75.0%). 

An estimated 23,800 injuries (35.5%) 

occurred as a result of kickback of the 

material, including scenarios where 

kickback of the material caused the 

operator’s hand to be pulled into the 

blade, resulting in a laceration injury or 

amputation. Of the 23,800 blade contact 

injuries that occurred as a result of 

kickback, lacerations were the most 

frequent (61.2%) form of injury 

followed by amputations (15.6%), 

fractures (14.2%), and avulsions (6.5%). 

The rate of hospitalization was 9.0 

percent. 

Of the 66,900 emergency room-treated 

injuries involving table saw operator 

blade contact in 2007 and 2008, an 

estimated 39,600 injuries (59.2%) did 

not occur as a result of kickback of the 

material. Non-kickback injury scenarios 

included situations caused by a lapse in 

attention of the operator, such as 

reaching over the blade to retrieve a cut 

piece or otherwise not being aware of 

the blade during a cut. Of the 39,600 

blade contact injuries that did not occur 

as a result of kickback, lacerations were 

the most frequent (69.4%) form of 

injury, followed by fractures (11.0%), 

amputations (9.5%), and avulsions 

(9.5%). The rate of hospitalization was 

5.0 percent. CPSC staff did not find 

sufficient information regarding 

whether kickback caused operator 

contact with the blade in approximately 

3,500 of the 66,900 operator blade 

contact injuries. 

F. Economic Considerations 

The Commission’s Injury Cost Model 

(‘‘ICM’’) uses empirically derived 

relationships between emergency 

department injuries estimated through 

NEISS and injuries treated in other 

settings (e.g., doctor’s offices, clinics) to 

estimate the number of injuries treated 

outside hospital emergency 

departments. Based on CPSC’s 2007– 

2008 special study, staff estimated that 

approximately 33,450 emergency 

department-treated blade contact 

injuries occurred annually over the 

2-year period 2007–2008. From these 

33,450 annual injuries, the ICM projects 

an annual total of 67,300 medically 

treated blade contact injuries with an 

associated injury cost of approximately 

$2.36 billion per year. CPSC staff 

determined that deaths resulting from 

blade contact during table saw use are 

rare and appear to be the result of 

secondary effects of the injuries (e.g., 

heart attack) rather than the injuries 

themselves. Accordingly, economic 

costs from deaths have been excluded. 

CPSC staff’s preliminary review 

showed that societal costs per blade 

contact injury amount to approximately 

$35,000. This includes costs for medical 

treatment, lost time from work, product 

liability litigation, and pain and 

suffering. The relatively high societal 

costs, compared to the $22,000 average 

cost for all medically treated consumer 

product related injuries, reflect the high 

costs associated with amputations and 

the relatively high hospitalization rate 

associated with these injuries. 

CPSC staff’s preliminary review also 

showed that the expected present value 

of the societal costs of blade contact 

injuries over the life of a table saw is 

substantial. Therefore, an effective 

performance-based table saw standard 

potentially could result in significant 

reductions in the injury costs associated 

with blade contact. However, current 

systems designed to address blade 

contact injuries on table saws appear to 

be costly and could substantially 

increase the retail cost of table saws, 

especially among the least expensive 

bench saws. 

G. Existing Standards 

The current U.S. voluntary consensus 

standard for table saws is the seventh 

edition of UL 987, Stationary and Fixed 

Electric Tools. Underwriters 

Laboratories Inc. (‘‘UL’’) published this 

standard in 1971, and has revised it 

several times. The original requirement 

for table saw guarding specified a 

complete guard that consisted of a hood, 

a spreader, and some type of antikickback device. The requirement 

further specified that the guard hood 

completely enclose the sides and top 

portion of the saw blade above the table 

and that the guard automatically adjust 

to the thickness of the workpiece. A 

blade guard that met this requirement 

was typically a hinged, rectangular 

piece of clear plastic. 

The sixth edition of UL 987, 

published in January 2005, added 

design and performance requirements 

for a riving knife and performance 

requirements for anti-kickback devices. 

This revision essentially required new 

table saws to employ a permanent riving 

knife that was adjustable for all table 

saw operations. The requirement also 

allowed for riving knife/spreader 

combination units, where the riving 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
62682 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

knife could be used as the attachment 

point for a blade guard during through 

cuts. The effective date for the riving 

knife requirement is January 31, 2014, 

for currently listed products, and 

January 31, 2008, for new products 

submitted for listing to the UL standard. 

The current edition, the seventh 

edition of UL 987, published in 

November 2007, expanded the table saw 

guarding requirements to include 

descriptions of a new modular blade 

guard design developed by a joint 

venture of the leading table saw 

manufacturers. The revised standard 

specified that the blade guard shall 

consist not of a hood, but of a topbarrier guarding element and two sidebarrier guarding elements. The new 

modular guard design was intended to 

be an improvement over traditional 

hood guard designs by providing better 

visibility, being easier to remove and 

install, and incorporating a permanent 

riving knife design. The revised 

standard also specified detailed design 

and performance requirements for the 

modular blade guard, riving knife, and 

anti-kickback device(s). The effective 

date for the new requirements was 

January 31, 2010. 

The Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (‘‘OSHA’’) currently has 

regulations on table saws used in the 

workplace, which are codified at 29 CFR 

1910.213, Woodworking Machinery 

Requirements. The OSHA regulations 

require that table saws in the workplace 

include a blade guard, a spreader, and 

an anti-kickback device. 29 CFR 

1910.213(c)(1)–(3). The OSHA 

regulations require the saw be guarded 

by a hood with certain performance 

standards including, among other 

things, requirements that the hood be 

strong enough to withstand certain 

pressures, be adjustable to the thickness 

of the material being cut, and be 

constructed in a way to protect the 

operator from flying splinters and 

broken saw teeth. 29 CFR 

1910.213(c)(1). The OSHA regulations 

also require inspection and maintenance 

of woodworking machinery. For 

example, unsafe saws must be removed 

from service immediately, push sticks or 

push blocks must be provided at the 

workplace for guiding or pushing 

material past the blade, and emphasis 

must be placed on the cleanliness 

around woodworking machinery and, in 

particular, the effective functioning of 

guards and prevention of fire hazards. 

29 CFR 1910.213(s). 

CPSC staff found that the primary 

differences between consumer and 

professional users of table saws are 

environment and training/experience. In 

many work production environments 

where a specific cut is performed 

continuously, guards and safety cut-off 

switches are custom designed for that 

set up. The area is specifically designed 

to be as safe as possible and safety is a 

continuous focus through warning/ 

instruction signs and posters that are 

often displayed throughout the work 

area. The workplace is also subject to 

spontaneous inspection by OSHA 

inspectors; therefore, the prospect of 

being fined for safety violations 

increases the likelihood that workers or 

supervisors will help ensure safety 

codes are followed. In addition, 

professional woodworkers are in an 

industrial setting where employees 

often receive training on safety practices 

and in the proper use of the tool. 

Professional woodworkers are more 

likely to have had training and to be 

experienced in performing any special 

or complex operations with the saw and 

are more likely to recognize situations 

and set-ups that may be dangerous or 

require extra care and caution. 

Amateur woodworkers generally have 

little or no safety training, nor training 

in the proper use of the table saw. They 

may take woodworking classes or watch 

a training video, but the home users 

typically have far less experience than 

professional woodworkers and may 

discover dangerous or difficult 

operations only by actually 

experiencing near accidents or 

problems. The home woodworker also 

does not have the same OSHA-regulated 

protections in the home-based 

woodshop. The focus on a safe 

environment in a consumer setting is 

dependent upon the knowledge and 

initiative of the home woodworker, but 

there is no oversight to educate and 

motivate the consumer to prepare as 

safe an environment as possible. 

CPSC staff also reviewed the 2007– 

2008 special study of table saw-related 

injury estimates to assess whether they 

were work-related. Narratives and 

responses in the 862 cases in the table 

saw study were reviewed to identify 

cases that might be work-related. Four 

of the cases appeared to be work-related, 

and another 12 cases appeared to be 

potentially work-related. Combined, 

these cases comprised less than 2 

percent of the sample data and less than 

2 percent of the estimated 79,500 total 

table or bench saw injuries over the two 

years 2007–2008. The remaining 846 

cases in the special study represented 

an estimated 78,000 non-work-related 

injuries. 

We believe that OSHA regulations 

may not adequately reduce the risk of 

operator blade contact injuries to 

consumers because these regulations are 

primarily intended to ensure a safer 

work environment in the professional 

workplace setting, rather than the home 

woodworking environment. OSHA 

regulations rely on a comprehensive 

approach to promote safe practices in 

the workplace. These strategies include 

training and outreach, as well as 

mandatory safety standards and 

enforcement. This approach would not 

be available to consumers operating 

table saws in a home woodworking 

environment. CPSC staff’s review 

showed that less than 2 percent of the 

estimated 79,500 total table or bench 

saw injuries over the 2007–2008 period 

appear to be work-related. Moreover, we 

note that the OSHA regulations for 

guarding are essentially identical to the 

requirements in the now superseded 

fifth edition of the voluntary standard 

for table saws, UL 987, Standard for 

Stationary and Fixed Electric Tools. 

Accordingly, the existing OSHA 

regulations for table saws do not reflect 

the latest revisions to UL 987, which 

require riving knives and the new 

modular blade guard design developed 

by the table saw industry. However, 

even if OSHA incorporates the new UL 

requirements in its regulations, we 

believe that current safety devices still 

may not adequately address the operator 

blade contact injuries associated with 

table saw use by consumers. 

H. Regulatory Alternatives 

One or more of the following 

alternatives could be used to reduce the 

identified risks associated with table 

saw blade contact injuries: 

1. Voluntary Standard. If the industry 

developed, adopted, and substantially 

conformed to an adequate voluntary 

standard, we could defer to the 

voluntary standard, instead of issuing a 

mandatory rule. The current voluntary 

standard for table saws includes 

requirements for a splitter/spreader, 

blade guard, and anti-kickback device to 

address the hazard posed by contact 

with the saw blade. The voluntary 

standards body only recently has begun 

to review requirements for a riving knife 

that may reduce certain kickback 

conditions that can result in unexpected 

blade contact. However, a riving knife 

would not address the blade contact 

injuries that were not caused by 

kickback of the material, an estimated 

39,600 injuries in 2007 and 2008. 

CPSC staff evaluated two new 

technologies that have been introduced 

to the table saw market since 2007 to 

address blade contact injury. 

Technologies that address blade contact 

injuries on table saws can be categorized 

by their main purpose: (1) Prevention of 

the event, and (2) mitigation of the 

event. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62683 

In 2007, a joint venture of the leading 

table saw manufacturers introduced a 

new modular blade guard design to the 

market. The new modular guard, like 

traditional blade guard systems, is 

aimed at preventing the event of blade 

contact. In general, traditional blade 

guards and the new modular blade 

guards can effectively prevent most 

physical side, rear, and downward 

contact with the table saw blade but will 

primarily act as a tactile warning for 

front approach contact with the blade. 

The new modular blade guard system 

appears to be a significant improvement 

over most traditional blade guard 

systems because it uses a permanent, 

adjustable riving knife, rather than a 

removable splitter, as the primary 

kickback prevention device and support 

for the guard. However, the new blade 

guard system still would not prevent 

blade contact injuries resulting from the 

hand approaching the front, or leading 

portion, of the blade. Furthermore, the 

new blade guard system still can hinder 

certain table saw tasks, thereby 

encouraging its removal, and it can 

prevent certain sawing tasks from being 

performed unless it is removed. CPSC 

staff’s review showed that removing the 

blade guard system is easy but 

installation can be tricky and, if the 

process is repeated, it can also be timeconsuming and burdensome. These 

characteristics may motivate some 

consumers—especially experienced or 

expert woodworkers—not to bother 

reinstalling the system once it is 

removed. 

In 2008, the petitioners developed a 

contractor saw with a blade contact 

detection and reaction system that was 

introduced to the table saw market as 

the SawStop system. Blade contact 

detection and reaction systems function 

as a secondary safety system to mitigate 

the event of blade contact. The system 

is not intended to prevent table saw 

blade contact incidents, but rather, to 

lessen the consequences of blade 

contact when it occurs. The SawStop 

system includes two components: An 

electronic detection unit, and a brake. 

The system induces a small electrical 

signal onto the saw blade that is 

partially absorbed by the human body if 

contact is made. When this reduction in 

signal is detected, the system applies a 

brake to the blade that stops and retracts 

the blade below the table surface within 

milliseconds. In principle, the only 

injury likely to be sustained by direct 

contact with the saw blade when the 

system functions as intended is a small 

cut. 

The SawStop system reviewed by 

CPSC staff did not seem to interfere 

with most sawing operations, and, once 

installed, the system is essentially 

invisible to the consumer until it is 

needed. If the system is activated or the 

standard 10-inch blade needs to be 

replaced with a smaller dado blade (a 

type of saw blade used to cut grooves), 

the brake cartridge underneath the table 

surface must be replaced. Removing and 

reinstalling the brake cartridge when 

switching to and from dado sets, or once 

the system has been activated, can be 

difficult. However, in all likelihood, 

system activation would occur only 

after contact with the skin, a situation 

in which the consumer might have 

sustained serious injury had the system 

not been in place. 

We are concerned that the 

requirements in the voluntary standard 

for table saws, UL 987, Stationary and 

Fixed Electric Tools, which mandate a 

permanent riving knife and the new 

modular blade guard system, may not 

adequately address the operator blade 

contact injuries associated with table 

saw use. While we support the recent 

progress UL has made in improving the 

voluntary standard to address blade 

contact injuries by focusing solely on 

prevention of skin-to-blade contact, the 

standard requirements do not appear to 

address adequately the number or 

severity of blade contact injuries that 

occur on table saws, nor do they address 

the associated societal costs. In 

addition, while we believe that the new 

modular guard design is a significant 

improvement over the old guard design, 

the effectiveness of any blade guard 

system depends upon an operator’s 

willingness to use it. Safety equipment 

that hinders the ability to operate the 

product likely will result in consumers 

bypassing, avoiding, or discarding the 

safety equipment. In addition, of the 

66,900 table saw operator blade contact 

injuries in 2007 and 2008, 

approximately 20,700 (30.9%) of the 

injuries occurred on table saws where 

the blade guard was in use. The current 

voluntary standard for table saws does 

not appear to address those types of 

injuries. Accordingly, we are 

particularly interested in obtaining 

information regarding current or 

developing voluntary standards that 

would address table saw blade contact 

injuries. 

2. Mandatory rule. We could issue a 

rule mandating performance 

requirements on table saws that would 

address blade contact injuries. 

3. Labeling rule. We could issue a rule 

requiring specified warnings and 

instructions to address table saw blade 

contact injuries. 

I. Request for Information and 

Comments 

This ANPR is the first step in a 

proceeding that could result in a 

mandatory safety standard for table 

saws to address the risk of injury 

associated with blade contact from table 

saws. We invite interested persons to 

submit their comments on any aspect of 

the alternatives discussed above in part 

H of this document. In particular, we 

request the following additional 

information: 

1. Written comments with respect to 

the risk of injury identified by the 

Commission, the regulatory alternatives 

being considered, and other possible 

alternatives for addressing the risk; 

2. Any existing standard or portion of 

a standard that could be issued as a 

proposed regulation; 

3. A statement of intention to modify 

or develop a voluntary standard to 

address the risk of injury discussed in 

this notice, along with a description of 

a plan (including a schedule) to do so; 

4. Studies, tests, or surveys that have 

been performed to analyze table saw 

blade contact injuries, severity of 

injuries, and costs associated with the 

injuries; 

5. Studies, tests, or surveys that 

analyze table saw use in relation to 

approach/feed rates, kickback, and 

blade guard use and effectiveness; 

6. Studies, tests, or descriptions of 

new technologies, or new applications 

of existing technologies that can address 

blade contact injuries, and estimates of 

costs associated with incorporation of 

new technologies or applications; 

7. Estimated manufacturing cost, per 

table saw, of new technologies or 

applications that can address blade 

contact injuries; 

8. Expected impact of technologies 

that can address blade contact injuries 

on wholesale and retail prices of table 

saws; 

9. Expected impact of technologies 

that can address blade contact injuries 

on utility and convenience of use; 

10. Information on effectiveness or 

user acceptance of new blade guard 

designs; 

11. Information on manufacturing 

costs of new blade guard designs; 

12. Information on usage rates of new 

blade guard designs; 

13. Information on U.S shipments of 

table saws prior to 2002, and between 

2003 and 2005; 

14. Information on differences 

between portable bench saws, contractor 

saws, and cabinet saws in frequency and 

duration of use; 

15. Information on differences 

between saws used by consumers, saws 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
62684 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

used by schools, and saws used 

commercially in frequency and duration 

of use; 

16. Studies, research, or data on entry 

information of materials being cut at 

blade contact (i.e., approach angle, 

approach speed, and approach force); 

17. Information that supports or 

disputes preliminary economic analyses 

on the cost of employing technologies 

that reduce blade contact injuries on 

table saws; 

18. Studies, research, or data on 

appropriate indicators of performance 

for blade-to-skin requirements that 

mitigate injury; 

19. Studies, research, or data that 

validates human finger proxies for skinto-blade tests; 

20. Studies, research, or data on 

detection/reaction systems that have 

been employed to mitigate blade contact 

injuries; 

21. Studies, research, or data on the 

technical challenges associated with 

developing new systems that could be 

employed to mitigate blade contact 

injuries; 

22. Studies, research, or data on 

guarding systems that have been 

employed to prevent or mitigate blade 

contact injuries; 

23. Studies, research, or data on 

kickback of a workpiece during table 

saw use; 

24. The costs and benefits of 

mandating a labeling or instructions 

requirement; and 

25. Other relevant information 

regarding the addressability of blade 

contact injuries. 

Comments and other submissions 

should be identified by identified by 

Docket No. CPSC–2011–0074 and 

submitted in accordance with the 

instructions provided above. All 

comments and other submissions must 

be received by December 12, 2011. 

Dated: October 5, 2011. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–26171 Filed 10–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

25 CFR Part 514 

RIN 3141–AA40 

Fees 

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming 

Commission, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The National Indian Gaming 

Commission (NIGC) proposes to amend 

its fee regulations by requiring tribes to 

submit their fees and fee statements on 

a quarterly basis, basing the fee 

calculation on the gaming operation’s 

fiscal year, establishing an assessment 

for fees submitted one to 90 days late, 

and establishing a fingerprinting fee 

payment process. 

DATES: The agency must receive 

comments on or before December 12, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of the following methods, 

however, please note that comments 

sent by electronic mail are strongly 

encouraged. 

• E-mail comments to: 

reg.review@nigc.gov. 

• Mail comments to: National Indian 

Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street, 

NW., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 

20005. 

• Hand deliver comments to: 1441 L 

Street, NW., Suite 9100, Washington, 

DC 20005. 

• Fax comments to: National Indian 

Gaming Commission at 202–632–0045. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

National Indian Gaming Commission, 

1441 L Street, NW., Suite 9100 

Washington, DC 20005. Telephone: 

202–632–7009; e-mail: 

reg.review@nigc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Comments Invited 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in this proposed rulemaking 

by submitting such written data, views, 

or arguments as they may desire. 

Comments that provide the factual basis 

supporting the views and suggestions 

presented are particularly helpful in 

developing reasoned regulatory 

decisions on the proposal. 

II. Background 

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 

(IGRA or Act), Public Law 100–497, 25 

U.S.C. 2701 et seq., was signed into law 

on October 17, 1988. The Act 

establishes the National Indian Gaming 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) and sets 

out a comprehensive framework for the 

regulation of gaming on Indian lands. 

The purposes of IGRA include 

providing a statutory basis for the 

operation of gaming by Indian Tribes as 

a means of promoting tribal economic 

development, self-sufficiency, and 

strong tribal governments; ensuring that 

the Indian tribe is the primary 

beneficiary of the gaming operation; and 

declaring that the establishment of 

independent federal regulatory 

authority for gaming on Indian lands, 

the establishment of federal standards 

for gaming on Indian lands, and the 

establishment of a National Indian 

Gaming Commission are necessary to 

meet congressional concerns regarding 

gaming and to protect such gaming as a 

means of generating tribal revenue. 25 

U.S.C. 2702. 

The IGRA established an agency 

funding framework whereby gaming 

operations licensed by tribes pay a fee 

to the Commission for each gaming 

operation that conducts Class II or Class 

III gaming activity that is regulated by 

IGRA. 25 U.S.C. 2717(a)(1). These fees 

are used to fund the Commission in 

carrying out its regulatory authority. 

Fees are based on the gaming 

operation’s gross revenues which are 

defined as the annual total amount of 

money wagered, less any amounts paid 

out as prizes or paid for prizes awarded 

and less allowance for amortization of 

capital expenditures for structures. 25 

U.S.C. 2717(a)(6). The rate of fees is 

established annually by the Commission 

and shall be payable on a quarterly 

basis. 25 U.S.C. 2717(a)(3). IGRA limits 

the total amount of fees imposed during 

any fiscal year to .08 percent of the gross 

gaming revenues of all gaming 

operations subject to regulation under 

IGRA. Failure of a gaming operation to 

pay the fees imposed by the 

Commission’s fee schedule can be 

grounds for a civil enforcement action. 

25 U.S.C. 2713(a)(1). The purpose of 

Part 514 is to establish how the NIGC 

sets and collects those fees, to establish 

a basic formula for tribes to utilize in 

calculating the amount of fees to pay, 

and to advise of the consequences for 

failure to pay the fees. 

On November 18, 2010, the National 

Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) 

issued a Notice of Inquiry and Notice of 

Consultation advising the public that 

the NIGC was conducting a 

comprehensive review of its regulations 

and requesting public comment on 

which of its regulations were most in 

need of revision, in what order the 

Commission should review its 

regulations, and the process NIGC 

should utilize to make revisions. 75 FR 

70680. On April 4, 2011, after holding 

eight consultations and reviewing all 

comments, NIGC published a Notice of 

Regulatory Review Schedule (NRR) 

setting out a consultation schedule and 

process for review. 76 FR 18457. Part 

514 was included in the first regulatory 

group reviewed pursuant to the NRR. 

III. Development of the Proposed Rule 

The Commission conducted a total of 

11 tribal consultations as part of its 

review of Part 514. Tribal consultations 

were held in every region of the country 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS